About your Search

20121204
20121204
STATION
MSNBCW 17
CNNW 16
FBC 10
CSPAN 7
KGO (ABC) 7
CNBC 6
KPIX (CBS) 5
KQED (PBS) 5
CSPAN2 4
KQEH (PBS) 4
SFGTV 4
KRCB (PBS) 2
SFGTV2 2
COM 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 105
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 105 (some duplicates have been removed)
to prosperity or to cut our way out of this deficit problem that we have. we're going to need more revenues. in order to do that, that starts with higher rates for the folks at the top. >> reporter: the president did say today he would consider lowering rates again for the top two percent next year as part of a broader tax overhaul. the house republican plan envisions $2.2 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade. $800 billion would come from new revenues but with no hike in tax rates for top earners. instead the plan relies on $1.2 trillion in reduced spending including $600 billion from changes in medicare and medicaid. at the white house today, the president met with a bipartisan group of governors pressing his own plan for deficit reduction. that proposal, $1.6 trillion in revenue from tax increases on the wealthy and $600 billion in spending cuts mostly from reductions in medicare. he also wants authority to raise the debt ceiling without congressional intervention. but governors emerged afterwards treading a line between the two sides. delaware governor jack markel, a democ
will eventually get hurt by the accumulating deficit. we have too much deficit. we have to find a solution. we are forced to find a workable solution. they do not seem to have the incentive. they patched things up and come back and another sustainable solution. the more general problem is that any system that is deprived of its volatility, the system becomes very fragile. just like the economy became fragile by micromanaging. >> let me use that to segue into the text. this book -- define for me "antifragile." >> what is the opposite of fragile? they tend to say robust, solid. the opposite of fragile is something that gains from disorder. i was an options trader for a long time, half of my life. i had a name for things that were harmed by volatility. i realized that you can map fragility as something that gains from volatility. things that gain from volatility, we have to have a name different from resilience. i call them "antifragile." people make mistakes shooting for robustness and stability, things that need -- you go to the gym. people work out. they stress their body and their body gets s
and screaming that can't be part of it, yet all of them privately will tell you what's driving the deficit more than any single thing of medicare and medicaid and longer-term social security, so the mere fact that we are discussing those types of things fit. in terms of the votes, look, if it's going to be a deal there has to be votes from both sides. the reality is -- and these guys, the president and the speaker dealt with one another before. they've never been able to come to a deal. they came to a huge deal during the lame-duck session in 2010 on extending the bush tax cuts. they came to another deal without shutting down the government in april of 2011 cutting discretionary spending by billions of dollars and they came to another one on the debt ceiling as well which was a 2.2 trillion dollar long-term reduction in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling. so, you know, the need to take it to another level. this is a more complex problem, and it's the beginning of a series of negotiations between the two. they are going to be together for the next four years. the president won the elec
deficits, but many things can change. as we all know with a budget, as the economy changes, as we get better revenue forecasts we have a different understanding of the budget and can adapt to it and balance to that level later on. so i really do think that taking a look at some of the funding sources here, it really ought to come i think from a place where the school district says it is their priority and that they're willing and able to use rainy day funds and even not that the reserves that they expect to have towards the end of the year. again they ended last year's school year with a fund balance of -- this year of 26 million. fundamentally i don't disagree with the usage but i think the source of funding is important for the city to consider especially knowing that we have other impacts that may flow down for us. so i will be -- if i could take the amendment in two parts, one to reduce the level of funding from the 2.upon million to the 2.205 and separate out the funding source instead of it coming from the state revenue loss, coming from the rainy day. >> supervisor chu asked to
. the deficit is not the biggest problem in the country. the deficit is shrinking by hundreds of millions of dollars every year the president has been in office. to the extent we need to use debt to accomplish other goals, you may not like the idea in the abstract, but debt is cheaper now than it has been in a long time. focusing on the deficit is like arguing about the color you might paint your car while you're crashing that car into a tree. in washington the republicans are arguing about not a pretend problem but something that's a secondary problem. a problem that has no need to be the one problem we wreck everything else to solve. if you look at the real economy in the real world, outside of t stuff already think we're not growing enough to get back to a healthy economy. they cut the estimate to how much we are growing. people are not making enough money and therefore, not spending enough money and businesses are not hiring enough people. we need to be talking about growth. the problem in the country is an economic growth problem. the deficit, nobody wants there to be a deficit, but
repeatedly said and our caucus again just confirmed that job creation equals deficit reduction, and we must put the country back to work. we have proposals that are on the floor. we still believe that even with the -- what little time remains and what little time remains when we're actually working, this is still possible. this is still doable. this is not a democrat or republican issue. republicans believe that america needs to go back to work. it's just a matter of having the will to do it, the programs are out there. compromise can be made around the streamlining of regulations to make sure that we are putting people back to work. if chris christy and barack obama can get -- chris cristie and barack obama can get together on that, and i know what's transpired and how the impact of our infrastructure has taken place along the eastern seaboard, it's something we ought to be able to rally around immediately. and of course everyone, everyone deserves a $250,000 tax break. we all agree on that. so why not just simply adopt it and then come back and we'll have time to address the issues as it
. not a driver of the deficit but, hey, cut that. one more specific. preserve the bush-era tax rates for income over $250,000. it's not a tax increase for everybody who earns over $250,000. it's only the income over $250,000 that would get additional taxes if the bush-era rates went away and the president's proposal was passed. but, no, they want to preserve -- totally preserve tax cuts for income over $250,000. they want to preserve the reduced capital gains rate and dividends rate which principally who ben pets, who else, millionaires and billionaires. now -- benefits, who else, millionaires and billionaires. they did have the jay wellington wimpy plan. you remember him? popeye. i will pay you for a hamburger today. unspecified tax loopholes. we will lower the tax rates for the people on the top. but they'll raise over $800 billion. the ability to deduct the interest on their home mortgage, do they want to take that away? probably. got to come from something pretty big. they don't want to touch the billionaire, millionaire job creator class. now, you know, that's a pretty interesting position
of payments deficit remains petroleum, and to increase our g.d.p. by the maximization of these activities in the united states rather than exporting our dollars abroad. so thank you very much and i think we can sit down now or -- yeah. >> thank you. give us a moment to take our seats. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, our panel discussion is about to begin, featuring senator lamar alexander, senator roy blunt, and our moderator, christine romans. >> can you hear me now? there we go. good morning, rn. -- all right. so i'm a lazy moderator. i've warned everyone. we want to get the ball rolling and talk about this report, talk about the future of energy in this country, and the future of transportation and america's national security with regards to energy. but i want to make sure that all of you know to please jump in. i don't want to ask a question and then ask another question. i want this to be a discussion, and i'll steer it. everyone agree? do we all agree? wonderful. let me start first with fred. nice to see you again. >> good to see you. >> you've heard the findings of the report,
the white house in 1988. but just two years later, the reagan deficits were skyrocketing and president bush was forced to change his most famous line. >> long and bitter battle over the budget officially ended last night. president bush put his signature on the deficit reduction package, including $140 billion in tax increases. >> tax increases. that was a turning point for the modern republican party. the right wing went crazy. and george bush lost re-election. since then the party's been committed to never compromising on the tax issue, no matter the deficit. no congressional republican has voted for an increase in taxes since 1990. think about it. for nearly a quarter of a century, no new income taxes. in the current congress, 236 house republicans vowed never to raise taxes. 40 gop senators also kept that pledge. even president george w. bush, the man who got us into two wars we didn't pay for. the president who exploded our deficit. he insisted the solution to our problems were more tax cuts. president clinton handed him a $236 billion surplus. a surplus. and left office with a $1.2 tr
accomplish something. if you go back to before bush tax cuts, three quarters of the deficit is gone. it was supposed to sunset two years ago. when is a good time to let those things sunset? >> you're right, there's never a good time. >> maybe do something with the sequester, but let the tax cuts expire. >> although i have to say at this time it's too much i think in terms of the tax increase. >> we never want any pain. >> you're right. and we do need to get our fiscal house in order. but again, this is why the idea would be to come up with a longer term plan where you could scale some of these things in and you have to come up with a plan that you'll stick to, otherwise you get into this where -- >> we never stick to anything. if we get another deal that is toothless and -- >> the markets will become even more skeptical because we've seen this before. but i have to say two things. i don't necessarily buy into the deal that there's a fiscal slope. i have to say on the tax side, one of the things we keep talking about is the amt. boy, that's something that will -- >> howard goes on an
split right down the metal on the political ppll on how they want obama to cut the deficit. 41 percent responded in favor of spending cuts. 41 percent of respondents saying they favor tax increases. the white house says it will offer a counterproposal to house speaker proposal. saying that unless he accepts tax increases on the rich the president is willing to go over the cliff. let's get straight to the politics of these developments and the rhetoric and possible economic impact of failure to resolve the issues. joining as, former special assistant to president george w. bush, a veteran political consultants and republican pollster. let's start, if i may, with you. do you think both sides right now are seriously ready to go over the cliff? >> i think the president is very ready because they are reading into this election last month a mandate that i simply don't see. the president got 15 million americans to vote against him which fail to produce any type of meaningful budget in his democratic controlled senate. we are at the disco club because of the president's inability to ever a si
the middle class because given that we have a large budget deficit down the road and given that if we don't want to and they don't want to cut military spending, what's left? they will have to cut programs beneficial to the middle class. this is another example, this is a continuation of the war on the middle class that they started years ago. now it's becoming clear for everybody to see. it was very clear before the election, but we had an election. americans repudiated the republican idea. reverse robin hood economics and yet they are coming back with it. over and over and over again. i think the fact that boehner will not schedule a vote on the middle class extension of the bush tax cuts that the president wants, the senate has already passed this. boehner is under increasing pressure to schedule a vote on this and get it out of the way. once they do that, the game is over. >> nancy pelosi is trying to take care of that. she plans to bring a discharge petition to the floor of the house tomorrow. this would force republicans to openly accept or reject the middle class tax cuts. did this
more deficit reduction if we do the fiscal cliff. i think the markets will reward the fiscal cliff over a period. there will be some panic and moaning and groaning, but first of all, the fiscal cliff is not a real cliff. it's a slope. and you're going to get the biggest bank for the buck in terms of deficit reduction. i think the economy can stand it. yes, we will go into two quarters of recession the cbo says, and i believe that. we're in deep trouble here. somebody's going to have to pay the bill. it's going to have to be all of us. >> joining me with more on all of this, patrick j. buick as well as former clinton special counsel davis. the president campaigns on $800 billion in new taxes. he now wants 1.6 trillion. he wants twice the amount, lanny. he wants a blank check and congress to give up its authority as it relates to money and say no, no, let me raise the debt ceiling any time i want. he wants 150 billion in new stimulus but no entitlement cuts at all, no spending cuts at all. now that sounds to me like somebody that's not serious. >> i don't know where to begin to correct so
was pleased to receive her endorsement. >> greta: when you became governor, you inherented a in--d a deficit. do you remember what it was? >> yes. the day before the election, the general election, it was $250 million. >> greta: million? >> uh-huh. keep in mind, the state budget is only 5.6 billion, so the day before the general election we were having it reported as $250 million. the day after the election it came $450 million. >> greta: what happened in those 24 or 48 hours? >> certainly the administration that was in place was not being truthful with the public, and so the day after i certainly was informed that the deficit was much bigger. >> greta: how does that happen? weren't the figures public? i mean, i assume that people were following and reporting on governor richardson as a steward of the economy here. >> no. that was not what was happening. when was coming out -- what was coming out of the governor's office were figures that were not being honest with the people. >> greta: you must have just about fallen over when you saw the number jump in a period of 24 or 48 hours. >> absolu
denied there is any effect on the deficit at all. durbin said social security hasn't added a dime to the deficit. in 2012 it added $160 billion of debt. that is more than a dime. there are 2.5 trillion in the trust fund in social security that will take care of it for 20 more years, 25 more years. that means pieces of paper in the trust fund where the treasury says we will pay you. it doesn't have the money. it spent surpluss in the past. that's a promise from the treasury which is pank ru bankrupt. that is infection but they know it. the republicans are bad guys these are good guys. surprising to me the president wokd get the revenues he wants from de deductions and exclusions. it is on rates not for economic reasons but political. he wants to break the backs of republicans. it this is a continuation of his campaign he thinks he wants it and now he wants to drive the steak through it. it is all about politics nothing about economics. >> democratic congressman chris van holland appeared on special report. there are cuts to the president's budget but republicans haven't paid attent
, reduce the deficit, and begin to show leadership in various areas of new technology that demonstrated here to the rest of the world. kohl will always be there. -- coal is always going to be there. there's lots of work there. all the sales will help, i think, of leverage our capability and give us more options. >> let me bring you in. 92% of american transportation is run on petroleum. with this new landscape for energy production of, how are we doing on diversifying different kinds of things that are running our transportation? >> so far, it is going slow. something that was deeply focused on was something note senator alexander said earlier. we need to find more and use less. i think you're asking about the use less part. the extension of the changing fuel efficiency standards was one thing, but we believe fervently in the need to diversify away from using petroleum for transportation and given that it represents 70% of our use of petroleum to begin with. with the change in technology and the access to so much homegrown natural gas, we can use that and we can also use the development
. government budgets that are in deficit at every level. there is no other backstop other than the organizations like us and others who are serving thess communities, and that it is important to understand that we have to take a fair and balanced approach. when announcing we all money to contribute to getting our fiscal house in order. we absolutely do, but we have to do it on the spending side and we have to like all the sources of revenue, all the source of revenue, not just a charitable deductions to figure out how to get our fiscal house in order. gerri: i don't know if it will happen by the end of the month. we have a long way to go. everyone seems to be talking pass themselves. thank you for coming on. appreciate your time. great information. >> thank you. gerri: likely be hurt the most of the deductions goal weight make up tonight's top five. food for the poor. based in florida using 97% of its billion dollars in revenue for its charitable commitments. for more information visit food for the poor. the american red cross which we have heard a lot about recently in the wak
-war in washington, from one half of the team that produced the deficit-cutting plan republicans say is their inspiration, democrat erskine bowles. >> there are over $7 trillion worth of economic events that are going to hit america in the gut. i think impact would be really strong. if anybody thinks this is going to be a slope better wake up. >> ifill: the link between brain injury and sports, new evidence ties repeated blows to the head to long-term damage. we take a look. >> brown: ray suarez looks at the firestorm over israel's announcement it will expand settlements in the west bank. >> ifill: elizabeth brackett looks at how one chicago school is dealing with the transition to new state-wide standards. >> i really did find that the kids do understand more, and they learn more. they're more interested in what they're learning. >> brown: plus, as global carbon dioxide levels hit record highs, we analyze the increasing difficulty of combating climate change, with carol davenport of the "national journal." >> ifill: that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs n
adds so much to the federal budget deficit. so republicans say raise the retirement age to 67 or means testing, meaning making more wealthy americans pay more into the system or get less out of the system. if you means test, that means you're paying less out to affluent americans. if you raise the retirement age, you're paying out less as money comes in and keeping the revenue line closer to the cost line. that is the goal. so when you do a 10 or 20-year calculation, medicare is not adding to the deficit. but that's the policy and just as republicans are having a backlash against the speaker saying we don't think we should put tax increases on the table, the democrats and some of the new members in congress, they say they ran promising not to touch medicare. so they say they won't do this. so you have the credibility challenge. republicans say give us entitlement and other spending cuts and the democrats want higher tax rates. that's why we have a stalemate. >>> an internet icon wanted in connection with the killing of his neighbor. stay with us, you're in "the situation room." that of
to spur, we have a $is00 million -- 100 million annual operating deficit structure and the need will grow over time. we have a growing population and growing transit needs. we are supposedly a transit first city where we want people out of their cars. not only do we need to shore up what we have we need to expand service significantly. now, funding is not muni's only challenge. we need continued work reform, salary efficiencies, implementation of the transit effectiveness project, and mta is moving in a good direction in those areas. but muni's chronic severe underfunding is a key part of muni's challenges. we're at a crossroads in san francisco in terms of investing in our system, and to be frank, we're not meeting that challenge. and what i seen is that when it comes to any funding place, muni loses. it is not high on city hall's priority list for funding. and hundreds of thousands of people who rely on muni every day lose as a result. we see this in various ways, for example the free muni for youth debate is one example. the school district reduced its own transportation program and th
? >> reporter: scott, this republican counterproposal today is long on reducing the deficit and saving big on medicare, but it leaves the two sides still hundreds of billions of dollars apart and they are not close on the basic approach to solve the fiscal cliff. in a letter to the president, house republicans called their offer a fair middle ground. it's a ten-year framework that cuts the deficit by $2.2 trillion. it includes $600 billion in health care cuts-- mostly medicare and medicaid-- $300 billion in other mandatory spending and $300 billion in cuts to all other federal spending. by contrast, the president has proposed around $600 billion in cuts to all entitlements, including medicare and he'd reduce other federal spending by $100 billion a year. the president has also proposed spending $50 billion in new stimulus and republicans have refused to consider it. the biggest difference by far is in how to raise new revenues. republicans would raise $800 billion by reducing tax loopholes, not with a tax rate increase. the president would double new revenues to $1.6 trillion, with most of
overwhelming the deficit story was at that point. you know, you look at that administration. the coming in, just no one thought they could do anything. it's not unlike the conversations we're having now. and they went in, they did the deal, president bush had to shift from read my lips to as only he could put it, read my hips. and it was good for the country, it created a political dynamic that cost president bush the election in 1992, and which we're still living, because that gave us grover norquist, et cetera. >> let's get to grover norquist in a minute, but i do have a question. the gop plan consists of $2.2 trillion in savings over a decade. that includes raging the eligibility age for medicare from 65 to 67. and lowering cost of living increases for social security benefits. they also propose overhauling the tax code to generate $800 billion in new revenue. but without raising taxes on the wealthy. in a letter to the president, leading republicans compared their plan to one erskine bowles drew up last year. >> not even close. >> he rejected that connection and the white house, of cou
could not print money, we would be in a very bad way. i just think we need to get this deficit under control. those two wars that we have not paid for need to be paid for. you know, it has to be done. if going off the fiscal cliff means that it will be done, so be it. host: other groups are weighing in on these fiscal cliff talks. here is "the new york times" -- in the "financial times" this morning -- roger altman writing today in "the financial times." president obama will be meeting with several governors today at the white house to talk about the fiscal cliff. they will be meeting this morning around 10:00 a.m. eastern time, and then the governors are slated to hold a news conference at around 11:30 a.m. eastern time. go to our website for more details. washington insiders tackle fiscal cliff policy solutions. the group will hold a roundtable discussion today on the importance of reform to address the nation's debt and deficit spending this event takes place this morning around 8:30 a.m. eastern time. go to our website for all our coverage of the fiscal cliff talks. we have a web
low for middle-class families against the urgency of addressing our national budget deficits. by keeping tax rates low for 98% of americans and letting the tax rates go up very modestly for families earning over $250,000 a year, the democratic plan would cut the deficit by as much as a trillion dollars over the next decade. now, that alone doesn't cure our budget imbalance, but along with fair and sensible tax reforms and smart cuts in spending, it is part of the solution. let's be clear about one thing. the middle-class tax cut act would still benefit high-end taxpayers. families making over $250,000 a year would pay lower tax rates on their first $250,000. so if a family made $255,000, they'd only see an increase on the top $5,000 and then only to the clinton era rates that were in effect during the 1990's when, as we all recall, our economy was thriving. under the senate-passed plan, a family earning $255,000 a year would pay an extra 150 bucks in taxes. in opposing the middle-class tax cuts act, republicans claim that it would hurt the economy to raise tax rates on the to
five years the city has also experienceexperienced deficits. because of that we begun to pull on something that is known as the prop h trigger which is when we project 100 million in give to the school district. over the last five years, we have pulled 74 million from our school district.8srz now, last year, when we pulled the trigger again, i think that many of us saw that we had -- we were expectingynnj= another structural deficit as we've seen in the years before. but as we got closer to the night of june 30, i started to see actually that our budget had grown in a positive direction. and i was concerned that, as the states continue to cut our schools that we weren't able to backfill those cuts. i wanted everyone to understand where this supplemental is coming from. it came from what i was seeing wanting to give a small piece back. unexpectedly the school was cut from its after school funding source which is our 21st century funding source. it had been a late cutaupz; so e school district had not prepared to backfill it in their budget process as well. at the same time in
thought you should take a look. it totals $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years. the part that stood out to us was $600 billion in proposed savings in medicare reforms. how? in part by raising the age of eligibility to 65 to maybe 67. turning down the gop proposal, dan pfieffer said, quote, it provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which medicare savings they would achieve." let's head now to the white house and dan lothian. the white house will not offer a counter proposal, right? what's going on here? >> reporter: well, you know, i think the white house is digging in. the president said early on in this process that he would only sit down and really move forward, negotiate on this in any meaningful way if the tax hikes for the wealthy expired. and republicans have been pushing back on that -- tax breaks rather for the wealthy expired and republicans have been pushing back on that, say they go believe that will be harmful for the economic recovery because wealthy americans are the ones who are creating the jobs and
that calls for $2.2 trillion in deficit savings. it includes $800 billion in tax reforms, 600 billion in medicare reforms and 600 billion in spending cuts. because it doesn't contain tax hikes for the wealthiest americans or specifics about which loopholes will be eliminated, the president immediately rejected the republican proposal. want to know how far apart democrats and republicans are? listen to this. >> i think we're going over the cliff. >> it's unfortunate the white house has spent three weeks doing basically nothing. >> what we can't do is sit here trying to figure out what works for them. >> the president's idea of negotiation is roll over and do what i ask. >> it's clear to me they made a political calculation. if their ideas are different from ours, we can't guess what they are. >> they need to be more specific. >> some specificity from them. >> he can't be serious. >> haven't even begun to be serious. >> we need to get serious. >> i don't think they're serious. >> i would say we're nowhere. period. we're nowhere. >> hard to disagree with that. we're nowhere. period. >> t
-author of a deficit reduction plan that neither side has previously embraced. i spoke with him a short time ago. erskine bowles, thank you so much for joining you. late this afternoon john boehner, the house speaker, sent a letter to the white house in which he said he needed to find different middle ground on this fiscal cliff issue. he particularly cited your report which he described as providing imperfect but fair middle ground as a way of breaking this political stalemate. he's saying only the president would adopt your approach that maybe this stalemate could be broken. what do you think about that? >> (laughing) well, i haven't seen the letter, as i think you know. it's nice that the speaker would give me some credit for trying to do that. but what he is referring to is when i testified before the super committee, i tried to show these guys that if they truly wanted to ghettoing that they could ghettoing at that time. and basically as an example on discretionary spending they were talking about cuts between $200-$400 billion. look, ghettoing on $300 billion. on health care between $500 b
't think any credible economist will tell you we can simply cut our way out of the current deficits and debt. we need new revenues, and where should they come from? should they come from a middle class or working families that have really struggled or had setbacks in the last decade, or should it come from families that have done very well and can be asked to do more? if you look at the prosperity we enjoyed during the clinton administration when the tax rates were higher on upper income families, that certainly didn't kill economic growth. we have incredible economic growth during the clinton years. this same, tired argument that we hear time and time again that any kind of tax increase on anyone will hurt the economy, it isn't borne out by history. >> there are analysts that say both of these proposals are essentially for the base, and na in reality both sides know you'll come to the middle. you have johnny isakson who said earlier there's too much posturing going on here. what is your response that in relation the proposal from the white house and the president as well as from sp
on whose estimates you look at we'll have a deficit 1.1, 1.2 or $1.4 trillion a year. >> yes. melissa: none of those things curb the spending we're doing. >> no, right. melissa: that is what i thought was shocking and distressing about crunching these numbers. >> you're absolutely right. the most important way to look at iscal cliff debate, the math is fine to go through it but the most important question in my mind will there be serious structural entitlement reforms. melissa: right. >> the kinds of reforms that will yield savings well down the road, even beyond, 10, 15, 40 year windows we're talking about. what are the structural reforms that would produce those kinds of results. those are only things we should be clear. the only things that would actually make a difference. the kinds of spending you're seeing to a great extent on the fiscal cliff and president's plan and lesser extent to the republican plan, largely discretionary spending cuts. a lot coming out of defense. these are not long-term structural changes that will put us on a path to a balanced budget. that will not happen. m
there will be deficits that we'll be facing, in the coming years. we talked about the mandated cost block[u&,9- getting some additional dollars from that. and then the budget projections were bleak. they continue to be bleak. so once again, we're not -- we're still in a position where we'll be cutting and modifying and adjusting for next year. giving. >> who's first? commissioner wynns. >> commissioner wynns: i just mandated cost block grant be distributed to all the board members and hopefully at some time in the future we could have a discussion about that, because how this is going to work, this is another new change to the funding structure. it would be good for us all to know before we do the budget next year, to understand that better, i think. thank you. >> can i just encourage, if you haven't received this, mr. lee, all of the board members we asked for your input on what you'd like to hear. coming up we'd like to do our budget committee earlier rather than later knowing there are additional cuts we have to focus on and to set our priorities. we also have had several discussions around this pos
republicans put forward their plan to cut the u.s. deficit, but the proposal is quickly dismissed by democrats and the white house. >>> and australia central bank cuts interest rates to the lowest level since the financial crisis in a bid to get ahead of sluggish commodities demand. we're on tuesday and off to a slightly, what, soft close yesterday for european stocks. right now we're pretty evenlies passed, advancers just about outpacing decliners on the stoxx 600, but not by much, 5:4 if that. so one hour into the trading session, this is where we stand. the ftse 100 just flat, a flat close yesterday. the dax was essentially fairly flat yesterday. up just ten points. the cac 40 yesterday doing a little bit better, up 0.2%. first pointing out ftse up 9 out of the last 11. we have seen yields continue to decline in spain. just 5.23%, but still capped. spain requesting financial assistance. we'll keep our eye on the uk as we head toward the bank of england meeting this week p. dollar index has hit a one month low. you're redollar up to euro-dollar up near the high we saw yesterday. dollar-yen m
% of income earners. republicans counted with a 2.2 trillion dollar deficit reduction plan, 800 billion dollars in revenue, but didn't call for raising tax rates on wealthy. the proposal was quickly ejected with the white house. >>> new -- rejected by the white house. >>> new poll shows -- gallup asked americans to rate honesty and ethical standards car salesmen got lowest marks 8% marked them high or very high. congress is just above them, only 10% scored in the top two categories to be honest. journalists 24%. top of the rankings, nurses, 84% of americans gave them the highest marks and of course meteorologists right behind that >> i was going to say even though it is not darn -- not a 100% science -- [ talking over each other ] >> 100% science that has accuracy, a little less -- okay stop digging. [ talking over each other ] >> they didn't rate meteorologists i wonder who is dragging who down? [ laughing ] >> touche. >>> good morning. here's a look at a dry picture from sutro tower across san francisco towards the east bay hills. live doppler, scattered sprinkles northwest corner son
trillion from the deficit saying it doesn't quote meet the test of balance. the gop said the same thing about the white house's opening salvo. the gop says the ball is now in the white house's court. where are we with the dollars here? >> reporter: we have the opening bids from speaker boehner and president obama. the different in dollars. the president wants $800 billion more in tax increases. the republicans want approximately more a trillion dollars more spending cuts. that's the difference between the two sides just in dollar terms. there is a difference between the two sides in terms of principle. the principle centers on higher tax rates, yes or no. speaker boehner many latest offer is raise $800 billion mostly from the wealthy by limiting deductions. the president says, no, don't want that. we want to tax the rich with higher tax rates on the rich. we have a dollar difference, a difference in principle. martha: we are hung up on ideology here. if you can get the money one way and it produces a long lasting change to the tax code which both sides say they want, what seems to be th
the government while dealing with the deficit. you have suggested something which coincidentally is called the buffett rule which i think, like lou gehrig's disease is very unbelievable that this rule would just happen to be promoted by -- >> the diseases were already taken. (laughter) (applause) >> jon: i assume bufferin has something to do with it. you have come out and said you would prefer something where the rich pay a flat -- at least 30%. on their money. why do you say that? >> well, if they make over a million, i say on the amount over a million they ought to pay at least 30% and over $10 million they ought to pay 35%. most of the people -- in fact, virtually all of the people in my office, 20 or so people, between payroll and income taxes they pay more than 30%. a number of the extremely wealthy people pay less than 15% and some pay less than 10% and some pay nothing. >> jon: this is because of capital gains and the cayman islands. >> the whole works. >> jon: and bags that are kept dangling. (laughter) >> you're getting warm. >> jon: exactly. what then about the argument where the
balanced approach to the deficit. it does have some revenue in it, even though it's not from tax increases. so what does this opening offer say about where we are in these negotiations? >> well, it seems very difficult to imagine that we're going to be getting to a deal that will handle everything that needs to be addressed before the end of the year. i think the first main thing that needs to be addressed is the question of the tax cuts expiring. and for the obama administration, the question is, is it in their interest to trade tax cuts for the wealthy? increase for the wealthy for raising the age for eligibility for medicare, for example. i'm not sure that that's a trade that they are eager to make immediately. >> let me show you the side by side comparison. the president wants $1.6 trillion in revenue and republicans want to cap the same deductions for the rich but republicans want to change the age to 67 and change the way they calculate social security payments. i wonder, though, when we look at these numbers, are we that far apart in. >> i think they are definitely rather far aare p
put together a plan to move us towards some kind of deficit reduction package eventually evolved into the simpson-bowles commission plan. but the point i was making and i think the speaker is making is republicans have not come out here with some hardball, crazy off-the-table negotiation. what they have done is put something that bill clinton's former chief of staff at one time odd voe indicated for. and i think in the end that reflects that we are moving toward the potential compromise deal. >> he said -- >> i think i'm inappropriately in the middle here. i ought to be over there on the left. what bowles said yesterday was i was testifying before congress, and i described that as a midpoint between what republicans want and what democrats wanted. it was not what i would recommend. but i don't think that's even relevant. >> -- circumstances have changed since then. >> i don't even think that's relevant. i think the real question here and i think ron's right about this is are tax rates going to go up? yes, they're going to go up, because republicans are not going to have to vote f
leaders. governors are concerned about the impact of deficit reduction measures on their state budgebu. the latest gop offer would overhaul the tax code, raise $800 billion in new revenue but seek $600 billion in health savings, net savings add up to about $2.2 trillion over ten years. boehner called the white house's original offer la la land and it does appear that even though at one point bowles endorsed a blueprint like this, he's trying to distance himself from it right now. >> the president got re-elected. he's claiming he got re-elected in part because he wants to tax that 2%. he cannot go back on that. in the meantime, congress most of the republicans signed the grover norquist pledge which says you cannot tax that 2% more than anybody else. you can't increase the taxes. so we're at a stalemate and someone has to give and i don't see anyone giving right now. >> bank of america today commented on the let's jump crowd. the bungee jump crowd for which they think is a scenario. >> you wonder how much of that is in negotiating position. embraced early on by senator schumer, new york
balanced approach to reducing the deficit. here is a house republican on higher rates. >> republicans are willing to make sure we don't go over this fiscal cliff but at the same time don't harm this economy. what has to happen here if the president shows a little leadership we are willing to stay in the room and stay here and we are willing to get this done. that's why you saw a proposal that is raoeubl reasonable that meets his criteria. >> reporter: steny hoyer said in the next few days we will see substantive movement in private to get this done. jenna: we'll continue to watch the play-by-play, mike, thank you. jon: right now we are continuing to await a speech by former president george w. bush, the speakers are taking to the podium there to get ready to introduce the former president. he is set to address a conference there in dallas, where he will spotlight the positive impact of immigration on u.s. economic growth. this as the g.o.p. looks to attract more hiss to the party. meantime mr. bush's father, former president george h.w. bush is spending another day in the hospital bei
offer a counter proposal on the fiscal cliff. their plan, $2.2 trillion deficit savings over the next decade, but it does not include higher tax rates for the wealthy. the house speaker john boehner calls it a credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the white house. guess what? the white house released a statement tonight saying the plan is nothing new, that it lowers rates for the wealthy and sticks the middle class with the bill. so to borrow a phrase, we're nowhere. period. david walker is president and ceo of comeback america initiative. he's made it his mission to promote fiscal responsibility. he joins us along with cnn political analyst, david gergen. the house republicans put forward their counter proposal. speaker boehner says it's credible and the white house should consider it. is it credible or is it more of what you have called the irresponsible unethical immoral behavior of all the politicians here in washington? >> i think both sides are now putting things on the table but i think they're confused. what we have to do in the short term is avoid the fiscal cl
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 105 (some duplicates have been removed)